Draft 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

REVIEW OF THE SUMMARY SITE PROFILE FOR THE 

PACIFIC PROVING GROUNDS 

Contract No. 200-2009-28555 

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040, Revision 1

Prepared by 

U. Hans Behling, PhD, CHP 

S. Cohen & Associates 

1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 

Vienna, VA 22182 

November 2013 

Disclaimer 

This document is made available in accordance with the unanimous desire of the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH) to maintain all possible openness in its deliberations. However, 

the ABRWH and its contractor, SC&A, caution the reader that at the time of its release, this report is predecisional and has not been reviewed by the Board for factual accuracy or applicability within the 

requirements of 42CFR82. This implies that once reviewed by the ABRWH, the Board’s position may 

differ from the report’s conclusions. Thus, the reader should be cautioned that this report is for 

information only and that premature interpretations regarding its conclusions are unwarranted.
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

2 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

S. COHEN & ASSOCIATES:

Technical Support for the Advisory Board on 

Radiation & Worker Health Review of 

NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Effective Date:

Draft – November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1

Review of the Summary Site Profile for the Pacific 

Proving Grounds

Page 2 of 65

Task Manager:

__________________________ Date:____________

U. Hans Behling, PhD, MPH

Supersedes:

Rev. 0 (Draft)

Project Manager:

__________________________ Date:____________

John Stiver, CHP

Peer Reviewer(s):

 John Mauro

 John Stiver

 

 

 

Record of Revisions

Revision 

Number

Effective 

Date Description of Revision

0 (Draft) 10/21/2013 Initial issue

1 (Draft) 11/05/2013 Revised Finding 1.
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

3 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Abbreviations and Acronyms ..........................................................................................................6

1.0 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................8

1.1 Technical Approach and Review Criteria ................................................................8

1.2 Summary of Issues ...................................................................................................9

1.3 Organization of the Report.....................................................................................10

2.0 Introduction and Scope of Audit ........................................................................................11

2.1 Scope and Objectives of Audit ..............................................................................11

3.0 Relevant Background Information .....................................................................................12

4.0 Review of Section 1.0 “Introduction” of the PPG Site Profile ..........................................14

5.0 Review of Section 3.0 “Occupational Medical Dose” of the PPG Site Profile .................18

6.0 Review of Section 4.0 “Occupational Environmental Dose” of the PPG Site Profile ......19

7.0 Review of Section 6.0 “Occupational External Dose” of the PPG Site Profile .................20

7.1 Relevant Data for Operation CROSSROADS .......................................................23

7.2 Relevant Data for Operation Greenhouse ..............................................................27

7.3 Other Limitations of Recorded Film Badge Data ..................................................37

7.4 Comments and Findings Pertaining to the Adequacy of the PPG Site Profile 

for the Assignment of Occupational External Dose ..............................................41

7.4.1 Limitations and Deficiencies of Personnel Monitoring During PPG 

Operations ..................................................................................................41

7.4.2 An Assessment of Guidance Provided in the PPG Site Profile .................42

8.0 An Assessment of the PPG Site Profile for Adequacy in Performing a Dose 

Reconstruction ...................................................................................................................49

8.1 Recorded/Modeled Dose ........................................................................................50

8.1.1 Recorded/Modeled Dose for [Redacted] ...................................................50

8.1.2 Recorded/Modeled Dose for [Redacted] ...................................................51

8.2 Assigned Missed Dose ...........................................................................................54

8.3 Assigned Coworker Dose ......................................................................................54

8.4 Occupational Medical Dose ...................................................................................55

8.5 Other Deficiencies .................................................................................................56

9.0 Summary Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................57

References ......................................................................................................................................59

Appendix 1: DOL’s Notice of Final Decision for Case [Redacted] .............................................62
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

4 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 3-1. Summary Statistics of Numbers of U.S. Tests and Explosive Yields at 

Mid-Pacific Locations ................................................................................................12

Table 3-2. Atmospheric Nuclear Tests Conducted by the United States ......................................12

Table 7-1. Operation GREENHOUSE Detonations, Enewetak, 1951 .........................................27

Table 7-2. Operation GREENHOUSE Badge Exposures (R) ......................................................28

Table 7-3. Beta-Photon Ratios for Exposure from Surface Contamination .................................44

Table 7-4. Beta-to-gamma Dose Ratios for Bare Skin Exposures to 

Mixed Fission Products at Pacific Test Sites ..............................................................45

Table 8-1. Summary of NIOSH-Derived External Dose Estimates .............................................49

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 7-1. Enewetak Atoll showing GREENHOUSE and SANDSTONE Detonation Sites 

and Islands Where Support Personnel Worked and Lived .........................................30

Figure 7-2. Center of Enewetak (Fred) Island ..............................................................................31

Figure 7-3. Medren (Elmre) Island (formerly Parry Island) .........................................................31

Figure 7-4. Japtan Before Cleanup ...............................................................................................32

Figure 7-5. Enjebi Camp, GREENHOUSE ..................................................................................32

Figure 7-6. Cumulative Gamma Exposure – Parry Island, Maximum Possible 

GREENHOUSE, DOG, and EASY ............................................................................33

Figure 7-7. Cumulative Gamma Exposure – Parry Island, Maximum Possible 

GREENHOUSE, ITEM ..............................................................................................34

Figure 7-8. Cumulative Dose (rem) for Personnel on Parry Island due to 

GREENHOUSE Fallout .............................................................................................35

Figure 7-9. Cumulative Dose (rem) for Personnel on Enewetak Island due to 

GREENHOUSE Fallout .............................................................................................36

Figure 7-10. Cumulative Dose (rem) for Personnel on Japtan Island due to 

GREENHOUSE Fallout .............................................................................................37
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

5 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

LIST OF EXHIBITS 

Exhibit 7-1. Section 6.0 (Page 13) from the PPG Site Profile ......................................................21

Exhibit 7-2. Page 1 of Attachment A from PPG Site Profile........................................................22

Exhibit 8-1. [Redacted] Dosimetry Records for Case #[Redacted] ..............................................51

Exhibit 8-2. [Redacted] Dosimetry Records for Case #[Redacted] ..............................................52

Exhibit 8-3. Original Processing Information of Badge #[Redacted] and Badge #[Redacted] 

Inclusive of Recorded NOD Values ...........................................................................53
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

6 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

Advisory Board 

or Board Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 

A/P anterior/posterior 

AWE Atomic Weapons Employer 

CATI Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview 

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

CE Claims Examiner 

cm centimeter 

DEEOICA Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

DNA Defense Nuclear Agency 

DOD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOL U.S. Department of Labor 

DTRA Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

EE Energy Employee 

EEOICPA Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act 

ft foot 

H&N Holmes and Narver 

hr hour 

in inch 

ISO isotropic 

JTF1 Joint Task Force 1 

JTF3 Joint Task Force 3 

keV kiloelectron volt 

km kilometer 

kt kiloton 

mm millimeter 

MDA minimum detectable activity 

MDL Minimum Detection Limit 

MPE Maximum Permissible Exposure 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

7 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

mR milliroentgen 

Mt megaton 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

NOD net optical density 

NRC National Research Council 

NST-LLC National Securities Technologies, LLC 

NTS Nevada Test Site 

ORAUT Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team 

POC probability of causation 

PPG Pacific Proving Grounds 

R roentgen 

Rem Roentgen equivalent man 

ROT rotational 

SAIC Science Applications International Corporation 

SC&A S. Cohen and Associates (SC&A, Inc.) 

SEC Special Exposure Cohort 

SRDB Site Research Query Database 

TBD technical basis document 

TNT high explosive 

U.S.C. United States Code 

WG Work Group 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

8 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This draft report presents S. Cohen and Associates’ (SC&A, Inc.) evaluation of the Site Profile 

for the Pacific Proving Ground [ORAUT-TKBS-0052, Rev. 0 (ORAUT 2006)]. This draft report 

was prepared at the request of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (the Board). 

Authorization for the preparation of this report was issued during a full Board meeting held in 

Santa Fe, New Mexico, in June 2012. 

As part of our evaluation, SC&A also reviewed numerous other documents that were considered 

relevant and included the following: 

 Select documents referenced in the Pacific Proving Grounds (PPG) Site Profile

 Documents contained in the NIOSH Site Research Query Database (SRDB) 

 Relevant reference texts and scientific studies cited in the open literature 

1.1 TECHNICAL APPROACH AND REVIEW CRITERIA 

The approach used by SC&A to perform this review includes, but is not limited to, the 

procedural protocols described in Standard Operating Procedure for Performing Site Profile 

Reviews (SC&A 2004). Approved by the Advisory Board on March 18, 2004, SC&A’s protocol 

reflects the following review criteria: 

(1) Completeness of data sources 

(2) Technical accuracy 

(3) Adequacy of data 

(4) Consistency with other site profiles 

(5) Regulatory compliance 

Deficiencies pertaining to these review criteria are noted as “issues.” Our review of the PPG Site 

Profile identified a total of 10 issues. Nine of the issues are regarded as “findings” and represent 

deficiencies that may require correction due to their potential adverse impact(s) on dose 

reconstruction. A single issue designated as an “observation” corresponds to an issue with 

limited significance for affecting dose reconstruction. 

The purpose of this review is to provide the Advisory Board with an independent assessment of 

issues that surround the PPG Site Profile. Specifically, findings identified in our review are 

expected to provide the Advisory Board with a preliminary overview of potential issues that 

may impact the feasibility of dose assessment. 

SC&A’s draft report with its preliminary findings will subsequently undergo a multi-step 

resolution process. Resolution includes a transparent review and discussion of draft findings 

with members of the Advisory Board’s Work Group and select personnel representing 

NIOSH/ORAUT. This resolution process is intended to ensure that each finding is evaluated on 

its technical merit in a fair and impartial manner. 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

9 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

1.2 SUMMARY OF ISSUES 

SC&A’s review of ORAUT-TKBS-0052, Rev. 00, principally focused on the following four 

sections of the PPG Site Profile: 

 Section 1.0 – Introduction 

 Section 4.0 – Occupational Environmental Dose 

 Section 6.0 – Occupational External Dose 

 Attachment A 

Of the nine preliminary findings identified in this review, one finding questioned the 250-day 

Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) requirement for PPG participants, one finding pertained to 

Occupational Environmental Dose, five to Occupational External Dose, and two to

Attachment A. 

A brief statement for each of the nine findings is presented below. However, the reader is 

cautioned that nearly all findings are supported by a substantial body of information and data that 

are provided in the text. A more complete understanding and judgment of merit in behalf of 

these findings may, therefore, require a full review of this draft report. 

 Finding 1: NIOSH needs to update ORAUT-TKBS-0052, Rev. 00, with regard to the 

250-workday requirement for SEC Class inclusion. Revision 00 of ORAUT-TKBS-0052, 

Summary Site Profile for the Pacific Proving Grounds, was issued on August 30, 2006. 

At that time, SEC status for presumptive cancer claimants required employment of at 

least 250 workdays. The 250-workday requirement for PPG workers was subsequently 

amended by the Department of Labor (DOL) in EEOICPA Bulletin No. 06-15 issued on 

September 27, 2006 (DOL 2006), and EEOICPA Bulletin No. 07-05 issued on January 

11, 2007 (DOL 2007). 

 Finding 2: Section 4.0 “Occupational Environmental Dose” completely ignores 

occupational environmental doses for PPG locations from fallout. (Note: For PPG 

locations, occupational external environmental dose is for all practical purposes an 

integral part of the occupational external [as well as internal] dose and should be assessed 

as such in Section 6.0 of the PPG Site Profile.) 

 Finding 3: Available Department of Energy (DOE) records for a claimant may not only 

be incomplete/inaccurate, but more importantly may not include unmonitored exposures 

associated with cohort badging, exposure to fallout, etc. 

 Finding 4: ORAUT-TKBS-0052 does not provide a definition for unmonitored dose as it 

applies to PPG participants or any specific guidance. 

 Finding 5: Average photon energies associated with fallout are well above >250 keV. 

Depending on what exposure geometry is assumed, a default photon energy of 30–

250 keV may not be claimant favorable. 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

10 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

 Finding 6: Since claims involving skin cancer usually specify the location(s) on the body, 

the critical variable of distance above the source plane defined by Barss and Weitz (2006) 

should be included in the assignment of beta-to-gamma dose ratios for PPG claimants. 

 Finding 7: NIOSH’s guidance for the assignment of missed dose is based on assumptions 

that are not supported by facts and in the face of uncertainty are clearly not claimant 

favorable. 

 Finding 8: Independent of other concerns/limitations that characterize the Defense 

Nuclear Agency (DNA) dose distribution data (e.g., their accuracy, completeness, etc.), 

use of the 50th percentile dose as a coworker dose is not justified for PPG participants for 

Operations up to and inclusive of Operation CASTLE. 

 Finding 9: Operation-specific dose distributions defined by DNA must be adjusted to 

account for the minimum detectable activity (MDA) value of film dosimeters regardless 

of what percentile value is employed. 

1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT 

This draft report was written and organized as a “stand-alone” document by including summary 

information/data from various sources used to support our findings in the text of this report. For 

most of the nine findings, additional information is provided that either represents select portions 

or the full text of documents considered relevant to our findings. 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

11 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF AUDIT 

Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 

(EEOICPA), the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (Board) is mandated to 

conduct an independent review of the methods and procedures used by NIOSH and its 

contractors for dose reconstruction. As contractor to the Board, S. Cohen and Associates (SC&A, 

Inc.) has been charged to support this effort by independently evaluating site profiles as 

requested by the Board that correspond to specific facilities at which energy employees worked 

and were exposed to ionizing radiation. 

At an Advisory Board meeting held in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in June 2012, SC&A was tasked 

to review/evaluate the Site Profile for the PPG (ORAUT-TKBS-0052, Revision 00), which was 

issued on August 30, 2006. 

2.1 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF AUDIT 

SC&A’s past approach to the review of other site profiles closely followed the protocol 

described in Standard Operating Procedure for Performing Site Profile Reviews (SC&A 2004). 

For the PPG Site Profile, this standard review process is of limited value, due to the fact that for 

earlier time periods of operations, PPG workers may not have been monitored for exposure, or 

available records pertaining to worker monitoring, job duties and work locations, and sourceterm data were insufficient to perform complete dose reconstructions. Hence, NIOSH 

recommended an SEC class that includes all employees of DOE, DOE contractors, or 

subcontractors who worked at the PPG from 1946 through 1962, who were monitored or should 

have been monitored for exposure to ionizing radiation as a result of nuclear weapons testing at 

the PPG (NIOSH 2005). 

SC&A’s review of the PPG Site Profile will, therefore, assess and evaluate Sections 1, 4, and 6

and Attachment A of the PPG Site Profile, as well as all claimant-specific and site-specific data 

that are available and considered appropriate for a partial dose reconstruction in behalf of 

individuals who do not qualify for inclusion in the SEC. 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

12 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

3.0 RELEVANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Between 1946 and 1962, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC, the DOE predecessor 

agency) conducted a total of 105 atmospheric and underwater nuclear weapons tests at several 

locations in the Pacific that principally included the Bikini Atoll and Enewetak Atoll of the 

Marshall Islands, Johnston Island, and Christmas Island, as summarized in Table 3-1. 

Table 3-1. Summary Statistics of Numbers of U.S. Tests and Explosive Yields at 

Mid-Pacific Locations 

Bikini 

Atoll

Enewetak 

Atoll

Christmas 

Island Area

Johnson Atoll 

Area

Other Pacific 

Locations

Number of test 24a 42 24 12 3

Missing yield valuesb 0 0 0 4 2

YIELD (kt TNT equivalent)

 Minimumc 1.7 2.2 2.2 11.3 30.0

 Maximumc 15000.0 10400.0 7650.0 8300.0 30.0

 Meanc 3201.6 736.1 968.9 2472.0 30.0

 Medianc 388.5 45.5 310.0 1495.0 30.0

 Totalc 763838.8 31653.4 23253.3 19776.3+ 30+

a

 Includes shot YUCCA, 100 km W of Bikini 

b

 Data not released. 

c

 Based on available data only; not strictly correct for Johnson Atoll and Other Pacific locations because of missing 

values. 

Source: Simon and Robison 1997 

Inspection of Table 3.1 shows that the collective explosive yield for the 105 nuclear tests in the 

PPG was the equivalent of 151.55 megatons of TNT (151.55 Mt); and for the 66 nuclear tests 

conducted at Bikini Atoll and Enewetak Atoll, a combined yield of 108.5 Mt is estimated. 

Included among these tests was MIKE, the first thermonuclear (hydrogen) device tested on 

November 1, 1952, on Enewetak yielding 10.4 Mt, and Shot BRAVO, which at 15 Mt is the 

largest thermonuclear device ever tested by the U.S. on March 1, 1954, local time. 

In order to gain a quantitative perspective about the nature of weapons tested in the PPG, the 

explosive yields of these tests must be compared to those conducted within the continental U.S. 

at the Nevada Test Site (NTS), as shown in Table 3-2. Thus, the explosive yield for tests in the 

PPG is about 113-fold larger than those conducted at NTS, while tests in the Marshall Islands are 

nearly 80-fold larger. 

Table 3-2. Atmospheric Nuclear Tests Conducted by the United States 

Location of Test Number of Weapons 

Detonated

Total Yield 

(megatons TNT)

Continental United States 107 1.38

All PPG Tests 105 155.6

Marshall Islands 66 108.5

 Bikini Atoll 23 76.8

 Enewetak Atoll 43 31.6

(Source: DNA 1986) 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

13 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Another noteworthy aspect of the PPG weapons testing program is the temporal spacing between 

successive tests. 

As shown by dates in Table 2-1 of the PPG Site Profile, the time intervals between tests at the 

two atolls of the Marshall Islands during the 12-year period of 1946–1958 varied dramatically. 

For the first 5 years (from June 30, 1946, to May 24, 1951), there were only 9 tests (2 tests in 

1946, 3 in 1948, and 4 in 1951) with a combined yield of 544.5 kt that represents 0.5% of the 

108.5 Mt yield for all tests in the Marshall Islands. 

Beginning with the IVY test series in October 1952 and continuing with the CASTLE series in 

1954, the frequency and size of weapons tested increased dramatically. There were six dates 

(June 11, 1956; May 11, 1958; May 26, 1958; June 14, 1958; June 27, 1958; and July 22, 1958) 

on which two nuclear tests were conducted on the same day. 

The purpose of presenting the aforementioned statistics is to point out the magnitude and 

dynamics of the PPG testing program and the demands and limitations it placed on personnel and 

resources that were further complicated by the remote/isolated locations that characterize the 

four test sites of the PPG. 

Undoubtedly impacted by unexpected events, limited resources, and adverse operating 

conditions were RadSafe personnel. Their charter was to provide radiological surveillance and 

personnel monitoring for tens of thousands of personnel assigned to the PPG program. 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

14 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

4.0 REVIEW OF SECTION 1.0 “INTRODUCTION” OF THE 

PPG SITE PROFILE

Section 1.0 (ORAUT 2006), Introduction, briefly describes the purpose of the PPG Site Profile 

with the following statements: 

The purpose of this document is to provide guidance for dose reconstruction of 

non-SEC cancers and those presumptive cancer claims that have less than 

250 days of employment for EEOICPA claimants who participated in Pacific 

Proving Ground (PPG) operations. 

An SEC class established for the PPG includes all employees of DOE, DOE 

contractors, or subcontractors who worked at the PPG from 1946 through 1962 

who were monitored or should have been monitored for exposure to ionizing 

radiation as a result of nuclear weapons testing at the PPG (NIOSH 2005). This 

SEC applies to workers with covered cancers who were employed for a number 

of workdays, aggregating at least 250 workdays occurring either solely under 

this employment or in combination with workdays within the parameters 

(excluding aggregate workday requirements) established for other classes of 

employees included in the SEC. [Emphasis added.] 

SC&A Comments 

From these statements, NIOSH may exclude a claimant from the SEC class for the following 

reasons: 

1. Exclusion is based on the fact that the cancer is a non-SEC cancer regardless of the 

number of workdays; and 

2. Even for one of the 22 covered cancers, exclusion from the SEC class is based on fewer 

than 250 workdays. 

The regulatory requirement of the 250 workdays is cited in 42 CFR 83, Subpart C §83.13 

paragraph (c)(3)(ii), which states: 

 (ii) For health endangerment not established on the basis of a discrete 

incident, as described under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section, NIOSH will 

specify a minimum duration of employment to satisfy the health endangerment 

criterion as having been employed for a number of work days aggregating at least 

250 work days within the parameters established for the class or in combination 

with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of 

employees in the Cohort [Emphasis added.] 

Important to note is the fact that ORAUT-TKBS-0052, Rev. 00, was issued on August 30, 2006,

and complies with the regulatory requirement of the 250 workdays as cited above in 42 CFR 83, 

Subpart C § 83.13 paragraph (c)(3)(ii). However, the 250-workday requirement for PPG 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

15 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

workers was subsequently amended by the DOL in two separate bulletins. Salient excerpts from 

each of the two documents are cited below (DOL 2006).

 From EEOICPA Bulletin No. 06-15 issued September 27, 2006: 

1. This new addition to the SEC affects DOE employees and DOE contractor 

employees or subcontractor employees employed at the PPG from 1946 through 

1962 for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, either solely 

under this employment or in combination with work days established for other 

classes of employees included in the SEC. . . . This new SEC designation is 

established for workers who were “monitored or should have been monitored” 

while employed at the PPG. Using the current standards for monitoring of 

workers at a nuclear facility site, DOL is interpreting “monitored or should have 

been monitored” as including all employees who worked at the PPG during the

period from 1946 to 1962. . . . 

Please note that for this new SEC class, the 250 work day calculation includes 

any time spent at any of the islands or atolls that make up the PPG during its 

SEC time period. This includes time spent working or living at the PPG during 

the SEC time period. In addition, employees were evacuated to ships from the 

PPG prior to nuclear weapons tests being performed. Time spent on ships just 

prior to a nuclear weapons test is counted toward meeting the 250 work day 

requirement. For any 24-hour period that the employee was present (either 

worked or lived) on the PPG or on ships (evacuated prior to a nuclear weapon 

testing), the CE would credit the employee with the equivalent of three (8-hour) 

work days. If there is evidence the employee was present at the PPG or on ships 

for 24 hours in a day for 83 days, the employee would have the equivalent of 

250 work days and would meet the 250 work day requirement.

Since continuous time spent at this site is credited toward the calculation of 

250 work days, it is important the CE establish any period when the employee 

was not present at the site and exclude these periods from the 250 work day 

calculation. In determining the actual employment period, the CE must have 

clear and convincing evidence of a beginning date (hire) and end date 

(termination) of employment at the PPG. Where the evidence is not clear and 

convincing or consists only of film badge date(s) without a beginning date or 

end date, the CE must await further policy guidance before proceeding with the 

verification of covered SEC employment at the site. The National Office of 

DEEOIC continues to explore methods by which confirmation of employment can 

occur for workers alleging employment at the PPG. [Emphasis added.] 

SC&A’s Comments Pertaining to EEOICPA Bulletin No. 06-15 

Based on statements contained in Bulletin No. 06-15, claimants with presumptive cancers and 

verifiable employment of at least 83 days at the PPG are eligible for SEC class status if they 

were monitored or should have been monitored. 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

16 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

However, Bulletin No. 06-15 further states that “. . . In determining the actual employment 

period, . . . [and] where the evidence is not clear and convincing or consists only of film badge 

date(s) without beginning date or end date, the CE must await further policy guidance before 

proceeding with the verification of covered SEC employment at the site.”

Further policy guidance in dealing with PPG claims for which employment period(s) at the PPG 

lacks “clear and convincing evidence” was subsequently provided in EEOICPA Bulletin No. 07-

05 issued on January 11, 2007. Additional guidance includes the following (DOL 2007): 

 From Bulletin No. 07-05

1. This bulletin is in addition to the guidance specifically referenced in Item 5 of 

Bulletin 06-15. . . .

Absent evidence of hire and end dates of employment, the CE may utilize external 

film badge (dosimetry) records to establish covered employment at PPG. As 

confirmed by DEEOIC, employees working at PPG during its SEC period were 

issued individual film badges to monitor for radiation exposure. These individual 

film badges were generally issued for one day, one week or a month depending 

on potential exposure to the individual. Typically, film badge records would 

include the issue date and the end (return) date which can be used to document 

employment periods at the PPG. 

As noted for this SEC class in Bulletin 06-15, continuous time spent (including 

working or living) at PPG is credited toward the calculation of 250 work days. If 

the film badge records include an issue date and end (return) date within the PPG 

SEC time period, the CE is to credit the employee with the equivalent of three 

(8-hour) work days for each date the employee was badged, inclusive of the issue 

date and end (return) date. For example, an employee with a film badge with the 

issue date of 3/27/1954 and the end (return) date of 3/31/1954 would be credited 

with 15 (8-hour) work days. [Emphasis added.] 

SC&A Comments Pertaining to EEOICPA Bulletin No. 07-05

Use of film badge data may only serve as a credible substitute for formal employment records at 

PPG during the limited number of years when all personnel were issued dosimeters from the 

time of arrival/assignment at the PPG to the time of departure. The practice/policy of badging all 

personnel “around-the-clock” for the entire assignment at the PPG was not implemented until 

Operation REDWING, which represented a 17-detonation test series from May 5, 1956, to July 

21, 1956. 

During earlier operations, badging was not only restricted to select personnel, but also for 

restricted time periods as short as one day as noted above in Bulletin No. 07-05. This type of 

badging was defined as mission badging with the consequence of failing to badge personnel 

who should have been badged. Other limitations related to the potential use of film badge data 

relate to the practice of (1) coworker badging, (2) the undocumented use of time and dose-rate 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

17 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

instrumentation, as a means of restricting exposures to within a daily dose limit of 100 mr, and 

(3) failure to monitor personnel to fallout during “off-duty” times.

These monitoring practices that to variable degrees persisted until Operation REDWING are 

discussed extensively in the body of this review and suggest the limited value of film dosimetry 

data as surrogate documentation for employment periods. This is inarguably true for PPG 

personnel who were not, but should have been, monitored. 

Finding 1. NIOSH needs to update ORAUT-TKBS-0052, Rev. 00, with regard to the 

250-workday requirement for SEC Class inclusion. Revision 00 of ORAUT-TKBS-0052, 

Summary Site Profile for the Pacific Proving Grounds, was issued on August 30, 2006. At 

that time, SEC status for presumptive cancer claimants required employment with at least 

250 workdays. The 250-workday requirement for PPG workers was subsequently 

amended by the Department of Labor (DOL) in EEOICPA Bulletin No. 06-15 issued on 

September 27, 2006, and EEOICPA Bulletin No. 07-05 issued on January 11, 2007.

Additionally, there may be a need for further discussions pertaining to the surrogate use of 

film badge dosimetry for PPG employment period(s) as recommended in DOL’s EEOICPA 

Bulletin No. 07-05.
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

18 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

5.0 REVIEW OF SECTION 3.0 “OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL DOSE”

OF THE PPG SITE PROFILE

In Section 3.0 of the PPG Site Profile, NIOSH provides the following information/guidance: 

Multiple organizations based at various sites in the DOE complex sponsored and 

took part in the various operations. Based on records provided by DOE, the dose 

reconstructor must, if possible, determine the facility in the complex with which 

the employee was associated during participation in an oceanic test or operation. 

While these [DOE] sites provided many participants, other sites across the 

complex also provided participants . . . Other employers might have been 

associated with only one DOE facility or none at all. . . . 

. . . For other participants that were hired on location, the complex-wide 

documentation should be applied. The approach for applying occupational 

medical dose is found in Occupational X-Ray Dose Reconstruction for DOE 

Sites ([ORAUT 2004]). [Emphasis added.] 

SC&A Comments 

For a participant and claimant who may not have had any formal affiliation with a DOE facility 

(as suggested by reference to “. . . other participants that were hired on location”), Section 3.0 of 

the PPG Site Profile does not provide clear guidance and raises the following question: 

Is the “non-affiliated” claimant eligible for occupational medical exposures when:

(1) There are no records of occupational medical exposure? 

(2) Records of occupational medical exposures are available but were performed at a 

facility that is not a “covered facility” as defined in ORAUT-OTIB-0079 [ORAUT 

2011a]? 

Observation #1. There is a need for more definitive guidance pertaining to the assignment of 

occupational medical dose in behalf of claimants with no formal affiliation with a DOE or AWE 

facility.
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

19 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

6.0 REVIEW OF SECTION 4.0 “OCCUPATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

DOSE” OF THE PPG SITE PROFILE 

Although the stated purpose in Section 1.1 of ORAUT-TKBS-0052 is to provide “. . . guidance 

for dose reconstruction . . . for EEOICPA claimants who participated in Pacific Proving (PPG) 

operations,” Section 4.0 only addresses occupational environmental doses that claimant may 

have received while assigned to specific DOE-complex location(s) identified in ORAUT-OTIB0006, Rev. 3 PC-1, Occupational Onsite Ambient Dose Reconstruction for DOE Sites.

While SC&A agrees that while a PPG participant/claimant may also have had employment 

periods with radiation exposures at DOE facilities (which may require assessment of site-specific 

occupational environmental exposures for that DOE site), Section 4.0 of the PPG Site Profile 

neither makes reference to nor provides guidance for an assessment of occupational 

environmental dose that is specific for any PPG locations. 

SC&A Comments 

Given the highly unusual radiological conditions created by massive fallout, to which many PPG 

participants were exposed but not monitored, raises the question whether such exposures should 

even be classified as environmental or should, more appropriately, be labeled as occupational 

external dose. Regardless of how unmonitored exposure to fallout among PPG personnel is 

labeled, neither Section 4.0 “Occupational Environmental Dose,” nor Section 6.0 “Occupational 

External Dose” of the PPG Site Profile makes reference to or provides guidance for quantifying 

exposures from fallout received indoors and outdoors at assigned duty stations where personnel 

worked and lived for extended time periods. 

As discussed in Section 7.2 below, for some nuclear-test (n-test) Operations, unmonitored

exposures to fallout far exceeded recorded exposures to personnel assigned mission badges. 

Finding 2: Section 4.0 “Occupational Environmental Dose” completely ignores 

occupational environmental doses for PPG locations from fallout. (Note: For PPG 

locations, occupational external environmental dose is for all practical purposes an integral 

part of the occupational external (as well as internal) dose and should be assessed as such 

in Section 6.0 of the PPG Site Profile.)
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

20 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

7.0 REVIEW OF SECTION 6.0 “OCCUPATIONAL EXTERNAL DOSE” 

OF THE PPG SITE PROFILE 

In the SEC Petition Evaluation Report, Petition SEC-00020 (NIOSH 2005), NIOSH stated that 

due to a lack of available data, it is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy radiation 

doses resulting from internal exposures during PPG operations. Thus, for claimants with either 

non-SEC cancers or with presumptive cancers but less than 250 workdays, dose reconstruction is 

principally defined by occupational external dose. It is for this reason that SC&A’s audit of the 

PPG Site Profile heavily focused on NIOSH’s assessment of occupational external doses 

associated with specific n-test operations in terms of accuracy, reliability, and completeness.

Discussion and guidance for the assignment of occupational external dose in the PPG Site Profile 

are limited to less than a single page under Section 6.0 “Occupational External Dose” and 

Attachment A. Attachment A identifies summary dose distributions of personnel who 

participated in the nine PPG n-test Operations, as reported by the DNA,

1

and 50th percentile 

doses for each Operation as derived by NIOSH. 

As a convenience to the reader, Section 6.0 of the PPG Site Profile and the first page of 

Attachment A are reproduced herein as Exhibit 7-1 and Exhibit 7-2, respectively. 

Based on statements contained in Section 6.0 and Attachment A of the PPG Site Profile (see 

Exhibits 7-1 and 7-2), occupational external dose estimates may be based on (1) dosimetry 

records provided by DOE for a monitored claimant or (2) the derived 50th percentile dose of the 

appropriate n-test Operation defined in Attachment A for an unmonitored claimant.

Key elements contained in these two exhibits are referenced in Section 7.4 in our assessment of 

the PPG Site Profile for the assignment of occupational external dose with regard to accuracy, 

completeness, and claimant favorability. 

Due to the fact that radiation monitoring practices, issues that impacted the veracity of film 

badge dosimeters and the availability of resources varied over the 16-year test period, SC&A’s

assessment of data and guidance provided in the PPG Site Profile is most appropriately done for 

specific Operations. While a comprehensive review of all nine Operations is beyond the scope 

of this audit, SC&A has selected two earlier operations, Operation CROSSROADS and 

Operation GREENHOUSE, which illustrate the range of issues that potentially impact dose 

reconstruction for most non-DoD participant claimants who are not included in the SEC class. 

Issues that impact the integrity of film badge dosimetry at PPG Operations, such as overstated 

readings that resulted from environmental damage, are discussed in Section 7.3 of this report and 

are detailed in DTRA/NTPR 2008. 

 

1 The Defense Nuclear Agency was a predecessor organization to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

(DTRA). DTRA was established in 1998 by consolidating several DoD organizations, including the Defense 

Special Weapons Agency (successor to the Defense Nuclear Agency) and the On-Site Inspection Agency as a result 

of the 1997 Defense Reform Initiative.
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

21 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Summarized in Sections 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 are data and statements taken from reports issued by 

the DNA, the Atomic Energy Agency (AEC), and the National Research Council (NRC) that 

pertain to radiological conditions and personnel monitoring practices for Operation 

CROSSROADS and Operation GREENHOUSE. 

Exhibit 7-1. Section 6.0 (Page 13) from the PPG Site Profile 

6.0 OCCUPATIONAL EXTERNAL DOSE 

A review of the records provided by DOE and application of the operation-specific parameters 

listed in Table 2-2 will provide a dose estimate for the employee. The assignment of 

unmonitored dose to participants who did not receive a dosimeter should be evaluated. NIOSH 

considers the available data and methods adequate for performing external photon dose 

reconstruction at the PPG. NIOSH determined in the SEC Petition Evaluation Report (NIOSH 

2005) that it lacks sufficient information to adequately reconstruct neutron doses at the PPG. 

The following specific guidance is provided for external dose reconstruction: 

Energy 

distribution: 

Assume an energy distribution of 100% 30-250 keV for 

photons. This is very favorable to claimants since it is likely 

that participants present during the events were exposed to 

photons >250 keV. Beta dose was not evaluated on the film 

dosimeters used during these operations. Beta-to-gamma 

ratios would be consistent with the guidance in the NTS 

TBD where atmospheric testing also occurred. 

Missed 

dose: 

Assign missed dose based on the number of exchanges 

found in the dosimetry records. During these tests there 

were operation badges that were worn for the entire test 

sequence or some other established interval of the 

operation and there were mission badges that were worn 

for the duration of a specific task. Since both badges were 

to be worn at the same time, only one zero should be 

assigned.

Uncertainty 

and bias: 

Assign uncertainty to the measured photon dose. As an 

assignment that is favorable to claimants, bias has been 

defaulted to 1.0 for both the missed and measured doses. 

According to the information in Film Badge Dosimetry in 

Atmospheric Nuclear Tests, the dose of record was to be 

divided by the bias, however it is favorable to claimants to 

assign as discussed above. 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

22 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Exhibit 7-2. Page 1 of Attachment A from PPG Site Profile 

The following information is available in the DNA radiation reports for the various PPG 

Operations. Using this summary data provided in the reports, the mid-point of each distribution 

has been determined and then multiplied by the number of non-DOD participants or badges (for 

the Crossroads data) that hypothetically received that mid-point dose. The midpoint for the last 

distribution was calculated using the highest dose as an end point. These were summed across 

all distributions and then divided by the total. This provides a 50% dose for each operation that 

can be used as co-worker dose, until such time as co-worker data is available. 

50% dose = Σ (A n* Bn) / C 

A = midpoint of each distribution 

B = total non-DOD participants or badges within the distribution 

C = total non-DOD participants or badges 

Crossroads – Actual Film Badge Readings (R gamma) 

Month Total Badges 0

(R)

0.001 – 0.1 (R) 0.101 – 1.0 (R) 1.001 – 10 (R)

July totals 3767 2843 689 232 3

% of Badges 100 75 18 6 <0.1

August totals 6664 3947 2139 570 8

% of Badges 100 59 32 9 0.1

Highest dose during Crossroads Operation was to a radiation safety monitor at 3.72 R. 

Calculated dose at 50% is 0.118 rem 

Sandstone – Film Badge Readings (R gamma) for non-DOD participants (119 participants 

badged)

April/May 0

(R)

0.001 – 1

(R)

1 – 2

(R)

>2

(R)

Total non-DOD participants 18 83 6 12

Eleven individuals from the Rad Safe group received doses above the imposed standard of 3 R. 

The highest dose received was 17 R. The average dose for all participants (including DOD) was 

0.25 R with 65% receiving a zero recorded exposure. 

Calculated dose at 50% is 1.383 rem. 

Greenhouse – Film Badge Readings (R gamma) for non-DOD participants (551 participants 

badged)

April/May 0

(R)

0.001 – 1

(R)

1 – 3

(R)

>3

(R)

Total non-DOD participants 110 325 82 34

The average dose was 0.5 R. The highest dose received was 8.6 R. 

Calculated dose at 50% is 0.950 rem. 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

23 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

7.1 RELEVANT DATA FOR OPERATION CROSSROADS 

Operation CROSSROADS was the first of the n-tests conducted at Bikini Atoll and consisted of 

two tests – ABLE, a 21 kt air drop on June 30, 1946, and BAKER, a 21 kt 90-foot underwater 

detonation on July 24, 1946. The series was to test the effects of nuclear weapons and 

“survival” of 90 naval vessels assembled in Bikini Lagoon as targets.

Background information and data considered salient to this review are presented below as 

verbatim excerpts taken from technical reports issued by the DNA, NRC, and others. 

 Excerpts from DNA (1984): Operation CROSSROAD 

FACT SHEET2

 . . .

The support fleet of more than 150 ships provided quarters, experimental 

stations, and workshops for most of the 42,000 men (more than 37,000 of who 

were Navy personnel) of Joint Task Force 1 (JTF1), the organization that 

conducted tests. Additional personnel were located on nearby atolls such as 

Enewetak and Kwajalein. The islands of the Bikini Atoll were used primarily as 

recreation and instrumentation sites. 

 . . . 

In the ABLE test, the weapon was dropped from a B-29 and burst over the target 

fleet. In BAKER, the weapon was suspended beneath an auxiliary craft anchored 

in the midst of the target fleet. 

[For] ABLE operations . . . The radioactivity created by the burst had only a 

transient effect, and within a day nearly all the surviving target ships had been 

safely reboarded. The ship inspections, instrument recoveries, and remooring 

necessary for the BAKER test proceeded on schedule. Five ships were sunk as a 

result of the test. 

 The crews of the target ships that had been remanned following ABLE were 

evacuated by BAKER to the support fleet east of the atoll. BAKER sank eight 

ships and damaged more ships than ABLE. The detonation caused most of the 

target fleet to be bathed in radioactive water spray and radioactive debris from 

the lagoon bottom. With the exception of 12 target vessels anchored in the array 

and the landing craft beached on Bikini Island, the target fleet remained too 

radiologically contaminated for several weeks for more than brief on-board 

activities.

 

2

 Although the old DNA reports are referenced in the site profile and are therefore the focal point of this 

review, updated fact sheets with revised information are available at the DTRA website. Example: 

http://www.dtra.mil/documents/ntpr/factsheets/Crossroads.pdf. 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

24 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

 The inability to complete inspections on much of the target fleet threatened the 

success of the operation after BAKER. A program of target vessel 

decontamination was begun in earnest about 1 August. This involved washing 

the ships’ exteriors using work crews drawn from the target ships’ companies 

under radiological supervision of monitors equipped with radiation detection 

and measurement devices. . . .

 By 10 August, a decision was made to stop work in Bikini and tow the surviving 

target fleet to Kwajalein Atoll where the work could be done in uncontaminated 

water.

. . . A major task at Kwajalein was to offload ammunition stored aboard the 

target ships. This work continued into the fall of 1946. Personnel continued to 

work on target ships at Kwajalein into 1947. 

 . . . 

The support ships were decontaminated as necessary and received a radiological 

clearance before they could return to the fleet. . . . 

 Finally, a formal resurvey of Bikini Atoll was conducted in the summer of 1947 to 

study long-term effects of the CROSSROADS. 

. . .

About 15 percent of the JTF-1 personnel was issued at least one of the 18,875 

film-badge dosimeters during CROSSROADS. Approximately 6,596 personnel 

were on islands or ships that had no potential for radiation exposure. 

Personnel anticipated to be at greatest radiological risk were badged, and a 

percentage of each group working in less contaminated areas was badged. . . .

 . . . A summary of film badge readings (in roentgens) for July and August, 

when the largest number of personnel was involved is listed below: 

Actual Film Badge Readings: 

(R gamma) 

Total 0 0.001–0.1 0.101–1.0 1.001–10.0

July 

%

3,767

100

2,843

75

689

18

232

6

3

>0.1

August

%

6,664

100

3,947

59

2,139

32

570

9

8

0.1
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

25 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

 From DNA 1984, page 48: 

Film Badges 

Two types of film badges were used at CROSSROADS. One type, called a

personnel or mission badge, had a range from 0 to 2 R. Badges were issued to 

some of the men about to enter possibly radioactive areas and most badges were 

collected after the men returned, usually the same day. Some badges were worn 

for 2 or 3 days, and a few for as long as 9 days have been noted. . . . Each badge 

was sealed in a tropically weather-proof envelope to protect it against the hot, 

humid Bikini climate. 

The badges were designed to measure both beta and gamma exposure, but the 

beta readings obtained and recorded are now considered questionable. 

[Emphasis added.] 

 From DNA 1984, pages 50–51: 

 Unmonitored Personnel Contamination 

 Personnel working in radioactive areas sometimes picked up radioactive particles 

on their bodies and their clothing. Procedures were established to minimize the 

spread of this contamination and potential internal and external exposure from 

these radioactive sources. . . .

Clothing so contaminated that it read more than 0.10 R/24 hours (gamma) was 

placed in paper bags, and radiation was allowed to decay for a period of time 

before the clothing was washed. If the radiation did not decrease to less than 

0.10 R/24 hours, the clothing was disposed of at sea. [Emphasis added.] 

 From DNA 1984, pages 216–218: 

FILM BADGE DOSIMETRY PROGRAM 

The device used to record individual exposures, the film badge, was used 

exclusively for personnel involve in missions that had radiation exposure 

potential. The Operation Plan defined the CROSSROADS personnel who were to 

wear badges and under what conditions. All radsafe monitors and assistant 

monitors were to wear them when entering potentially radioactive areas. . . . 

 In practice, badging for personnel other than the monitors and certain aircrews 

was more complete for personnel doing tasks with an obviously high potential for 

exposure, such as test-day surveys, initial boarding of target vessels, recovery of 

test animals, and early recovery of instruments, than for those engaged in other 

activities. . . . During early August, before decontamination of ships at Bikini 

was stopped, an average of about 100 unbadged personnel worked on USS Salt 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

26 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Lake City (CA-25) in three 2-hour shifts. Each shift was assigned two monitors 

who surveyed working areas to provide information concerning the time 

allowed in each area before a tolerance exposure was accrued.

All personnel not badged on these missions were, however, accompanied in the 

potential exposure areas by monitors equipped with radiation detection 

instruments. The monitor’s function was to guide the work parties away from 

radiologically “hot” areas and determine safe stay times in work areas. His 

pocket dosimeter or film badge recorded a representative exposure for the group 

he accompanied. 

 A total of 18,775 badges were issued during CROSSROADS at Bikini and at 

Kwajalein through 31 December 1946. Almost 11 percent of the badges were 

issued on ABLE-day and about 7 percent on BAKER-day, or the days 

immediately following each shot. . . . 

 Through July and August, 10,431 personnel badges were issued. Most of the 

remaining 8,344 badges were issued during September and October. Because 

most badges were issued for only 1 day, some individuals received more than 

one badge. The number of individuals receiving badges is not presently 

available, but the Navy Department currently estimates that up to 15 percent of 

the personnel received at least one badge. 

 Badge-Recorded Exposures after BAKER 

 

 . . . The CROSSROADS bikini badge readings were entered into standard 

government ledger books, along with certain associated information. The datarecording had several shortcomings. Given names or initials were included 

with only about half of the last names, and therefore when several entries 

containing only the same last name are found, it cannot be determined whether 

they represent the badge reading of one person or several with the same last 

name. Poor penmanship and spelling on the part of the clerks making the 

entries further complicates identification. Although a ship’s name was usually 

entered along with a person’s name, it is not always clear whether the ship named 

was the one on which the man lived or the one on which he worked as he wore the 

badge. However, the target ships with few exceptions were not renamed, so if a 

target ship is named in the ledger it was the place where the exposure occurred. 

[Emphasis added.] 

Excerpts from NRC 1989: 

Personnel badging issues during Operation CROSSROADS were also summarized in a 1989

NRC report, Film Badge Dosimetry in Atmospheric Nuclear Tests, which included the following 

comments (pp. 88–90). 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

27 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

 On Badge Issue and Exchange: 

Badges were intended to be issued on a daily basis. That was the typical 

experience although a few badges were retained for 2 or 3 days and as long as 

9 days. Badges were not issued to all personnel working or living in radiation 

areas. They were typically issued only to one or a few Rad-Safe monitors in a 

group. The film badge exposure of the Rad-Safe monitor was intended to be 

representative of the exposure of all members of the group, a concept called 

cohort badging. During the major ship decontamination effort between August 4 

and 10 there were typically two monitors per 100 personnel. All personnel in 

aircraft that were within 20 miles of the explosions were badged at the time of the 

test detonations. About 15% of the Navy personnel in the task force were issued 

at least one badge sometime during the test series. The largest number of badges 

issued to one person (a Rad-Safe monitor) was 19. [Emphasis added.] 

7.2 RELEVANT DATA FOR OPERATION GREENHOUSE 

Operation GREENHOUSE was the third test series conducted in the Pacific and involved four 

detonations on the islands of Enjebi, Eleleron, and Runit on Enewetak Atoll in April and May of 

1951 (Table 7-1 and Figure 7-1). Approximately 9,350 people participated in the operation, but 

film badges were only issued to 2,416 of the participants (DNA 1983b).

Film badges were issued from the RadSafe building that was located on Parry Island, Enewetak 

Atoll. Most badges were issued for specific missions of limited duration and were to be returned 

by the end of the day. Personnel assigned to naval support vessels were monitored by cohort 

film badging. (About 75 film badges for each of the 4 tests were distributed among the 6 

participating ships to be worn from the day of the test and 7 days thereafter.) Table 7-2 

summarizes the recorded film badge exposures for personnel representing the U.S. Army, Navy, 

Air Force, Marine Corp, and Non-DOD/civilians.

Of relevance to this report is the distribution of recorded film badge exposures for the 551 

badged civilians out of a total of 2,049 civilians who participated in Operation GREENHOUSE. 

Table 7-1. Operation GREENHOUSE Detonations, Enewetak, 1951 

Detonation Date Time Island Location 

in Enewetak Yield (kt) Type Burst

DOG 8 April 0634 Runit 81 300-foot (91.4-meter) tower shot

EASY 21 April 0627 Enjebi 47 300-foot (91.4-meter) tower shot

GEORGE 9 May 0930 Eleleron 225 200-foot (61.5-meter) tower shot

ITEM 25 May 0617 Enjebi 45 200-foot (61.5-meter) tower shot

Sources: DNA 1983b; DOE/NV 2000 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

28 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Table 7-2. Operation GREENHOUSE Badge Exposures (R) 

Total No. of 

Participants

Number 

Badged 0 0–1 1–3 3–5 Over 5 High (R)

U.S. Army 1,615 195 6 143 35 10 1 5.430

U.S. Navy 2,951 813 134 458 187 27 7 8.080

U.S. Air Force 2,604 849 86 516 146 64 37 8.475

U.S. Marine Corps 134 8 [redact] [redact] [redact] [redact] [redact] [redact]

Non-DOD/Civilians 2,049 551 110 325 82 20 14 8.575

TOTALS 9,371 2416 339 1445 450 123 59

Source: DNA 1983b

Estimates of radiation exposures to participants of Operation GREENHOUSE, as cited in 

Table 7.2, are principally dose distributions representing mission badges. Presented below are 

data and excerpts taken from the 1983 DNA (1983b) report and other sources, which properly 

characterize the limitations and deficiencies of the recorded film dosimeter data. 

Limitations and Deficiencies Pertaining to Recorded Film Dosimeter Data 

Radiation monitoring by RadSafe personnel of the Joint Task Force-3 (JTF-3) focused on 

defining radioactive areas after each shot, accompanying re-entry parties to radioactive areas to 

retrieve experimental data, and issuing film badges to select individuals involved in episodic 

missions that had significant potential for radiation exposure. (The majority of film badges were 

issued to personnel to record their exposures (1) while on the shot islands to recover data, test 

animals, and instrumentation; (2) while decontaminating aircrafts, etc.; (3) as members of the 

boat pool; or (4) as personnel who flew aircraft during/after each shot.) 

Not recorded by mission film dosimeters were exposures during unmonitored periods that 

included exposure to fallout on islands where personnel were housed and lived for extended 

periods of time as described below. 

 From DNA (1983b), p. 31: 

In late 1948 H&N [Homes and Narver] was charged with complete rehabilitation 

of the operational islands of Enewetak Atoll. . . . Construction included 

barracks for 708 men on Parry [Island], mess halls, laboratories, medical areas, 

theaters, barber shops, chapels, experimental structures, and many other 

facilities to support a semipermanent workforce. . . .

. . . Japtan [Island], just north of Parry [Island] . . . had a good stand of coconut 

trees and other vegetation . . . and was used for recreation.

. . . Temporary camps were constructed on three islands in the shot area in 

preparation for GREENHOUSE. A tent camp capable of billeting 610 was 

constructed in Enjebi [Island]. Similar camps for 320 men on Bijire [Island] and 

240 on Runit [Island] were also constructed . . . [Emphasis added.] 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

29 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

The locations of these islands relative to the locations of the four nuclear tests of Operation 

GREENHOUSE are shown in Figure 7-1 along with aerial photos of Enewetak, Parry, Japtan, 

and Enjebi Islands (Figures 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, and 7-5, respectively). 

Significant levels of fallout resulted from three of the four shots of Operation GREENHOUSE: 

DOG shot, ITEM shot, and GEORGE shot. Details of these three events are described in 

Cooney (1951) and summarized later in DNA (1983b). The following statements and data are 

taken from DNA (1983b).

 From pp. 232–239: 

. . . Three shots of the series deposited fallout over the base islands at Enewetak 

[Atoll] and six nearby ships, exposing personnel to radiation. 

. . . Only a portion of the personnel in areas where exposure was not expected 

were badged. Radiation from the unexpected fallout, therefore, was unrecorded 

for the large majority of GREENHOUSE participants. Fallout radiation, 

however, was recorded by instruments used to monitor background radiation, on 

film badges staked outside of buildings on Parry Island, as well as by sample 

badges issued to select personnel working in the areas affected by fallout. 

These basic background measurements and sample badges were used by radsafe 

personnel at the time of GREENHOUSE to estimate the maximum possible 

exposures resulting from fallout. Estimates were made for personnel staying on 

the base islands – Enewetak, Parry, and Japtan – as well as the ships. 

Figure 7-6 shows the cumulative gamma exposure for Parry Island for the period April 8, 1951,

through May 14, 1951, from fallout radiation associated with shots DOG and EASY. Figure 7-7

shows the cumulative outdoor gamma exposure on Parry Island for the 5-day period of May 25 

to May 30 for shot ITEM. These and other data were used in a 1981 analysis that produced a 

matrix of the estimated doses in rem for the whole GREENHOUSE test period for Parry, 

Enewetak, and Japtan Islands included herein as Figures 7-8, 7-9, and 7-10, respectively. Values 

shown in the figures reflect an assumed shielding adjustment of 0.7, which corresponds to a dose 

that would have been recorded by a properly worn film badge. 

Inspection of Figures 7-8, 7-9, and 7-10 shows that for personnel present at Parry, Enewetak, or 

Japtan Islands for the full duration, a maximum dose of about 4 rem from fallout would have 

been received at each of the three assessed islands. (Note: This “unmonitored/undocumented 

photon dose” of up to 4 R from fallout at locations where personnel lived/worked must be 

compared to the 50th percentile dose for Operation GREENHOUSE cited in Exhibit 7-2 above.) 

The Report (DNA 1983b) concluded with the following statements: 

The recent analysis does confirm that all personnel living on these three islands 

of Enewetak Atoll through the entire series probably exceeded the task force’s 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

30 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

maximum permissible exposure (MPE) due to fallout alone. Any additional 

exposures on missions would add to this overexposure. [Emphasis added.] 

Source: DNA 1983b 

Figure 7-1. Enewetak Atoll showing GREENHOUSE and SANDSTONE Detonation Sites 

and Islands Where Support Personnel Worked and Lived 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

31 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

 Source: Pevec 1999 

Figure 7-2. Center of Enewetak (Fred) Island 

` Source: Pevec 1999 

Figure 7-3. Medren (Elmre) Island (formerly Parry Island) 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

32 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

 Source: Pevec 1999

Figure 7-4. Japtan Before Cleanup 

 Source: DNA1983b

Figure 7-5. Enjebi Camp, GREENHOUSE 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

33 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Source: DNA 1983b 

Figure 7-6. Cumulative Gamma Exposure – Parry Island, Maximum Possible 

GREENHOUSE, DOG, and EASY 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

34 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

 Source: DNA 1983b 

Figure 7-7. Cumulative Gamma Exposure – Parry Island, Maximum Possible 

GREENHOUSE, ITEM 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

35 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Source: DNA 1983b 

Figure 7-8. Cumulative Dose (rem) for Personnel on Parry Island due to 

GREENHOUSE Fallout 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

36 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Source: DNA 1983b 

Figure 7-9. Cumulative Dose (rem) for Personnel on Enewetak Island due to 

GREENHOUSE Fallout 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

37 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Source: DNA 1983b 

Figure 7-10. Cumulative Dose (rem) for Personnel on Japtan Island due to 

GREENHOUSE Fallout 

7.3 OTHER LIMITATIONS OF RECORDED FILM BADGE DATA 

Beyond the incompleteness of recorded personnel monitoring data that were limited to 

(1) discrete time periods/missions of select personnel and/or (2) the use of cohort badges for 

which individual members of the cohort were frequently not identified (i.e., no doses were 

assigned), their use in dose reconstruction must further be assessed in terms of their accuracy and 

reliability. For each of the PPG operations, reports by the DNA (i.e., DNA 1981, 1982a, 1982b, 

1982c, 1982d, 1982e, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c, and 1984) provided critical assessment of the type 

and design of the badge; calibration and processing of badges; and dosimeter responses. A 

comprehensive review of these film badge data was reported by the NRC report, Film Badge 

Dosimetry in Atmospheric Nuclear Test (NRC 1989). 

Perhaps the single most important deficiency associated with the various film dosimeters used 

over the 16-year period was the inability to accurately monitor the beta dose. Starting with 

operation CROSSROADS, NRC (1989) stated: 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

38 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

. . . When a film badge with only a lead filter and an open area is exposed to 

unknown mixtures of beta and photon energies, it is not possible to determine 

contributions from each component to NOD [net optical density] in the film open 

area.

. . . It is likely that the NOD of some films attributed to beta exposure was in fact 

caused entirely by photon exposure. For these reasons, beta exposure results 

determined with film badges at Operation CROSSROADS are unreliable. 

[Emphasis added.] 

Several subsequent attempts to modify film dosimeters in order to monitor beta dose proved to 

be unsuccessful and the NRC (1989) concluded that, “. . . Thus, beta particle monitoring with 

personnel film badges was not successful during atmospheric nuclear testing series.” 

[Emphasis added.] 

Other problems included (1) environmental impacts associated with high ambient temperatures, 

high humidity, and exposure to sea water/mist; and (2) inconsistencies in the calibration, 

processing, and interpretation of the film responses, as given in the following example 

statements from NRC 1989: 

. . . Film badges were subject to the high temperature and humidity of the Pacific 

test site and were not free of environmental damage in spite of the plastic 

“tropical” envelope. 

 . . . Calibration films were not processed with each batch of films that was 

developed. Calibrations were assumed to be valid over a series of successive 

development batches. 

. . .

 . . . Often films were exposed at a nonperpendicular angle to the radiation 

beam . . . 

And 

 . . . Unspecified measures were taken to compensate for or to remove the 

contribution from fallout to the film badge readings . . . The existence of a 

problem was revealed in Cooney’s report (1951) where little confidence was 

placed on film readings less than 0.4 R. [Emphasis added.] 

The above-stated NRC reference to the “1951 Cooney Report” refers to the following statements 

cited on page 29 of Cooney 1951 at the time of the shot DOG, which was the first of the four 

n-tests of Operation GREENHOUSE: 

A series of test was conducted to determine the accuracy, with fission product 

exposure, of film badge data compared with readings of quartz fiber pocket 

dosimeters. A Victoreen thimble ionization chamber, known to be reasonably 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

39 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

energy independent, was used as a standard comparison. It was found that a 

film badge reading of 100 to 200 mr has a low significance, owing primarily to 

the variable exposures received by all unused film badges during the Dog day 

fall-out. Readings above 400 mr agreed with the standard chamber within 

about 10 percent and were considered to be reliable for doses equal to or greater 

than 400 mr. [Emphasis added.] 

In an attempt to gain a better understanding of protocols that may have existed at the time of 

Operation GREENHOUSE, the NRC provided the following information and conclusion (NRC 

1989, pg. 103): 

During review of the data from the Operation [GREENHOUSE], some films were 

retrieved and analyzed in an attempt to deduce the method used to adjust film 

readings for fallout. Calibration and unexposed control films as well as all 

density data no longer exist. Comparisons of the reported exposure and new 

density measurement did not reveal consistent patterns. A film reported with an 

exposure of 0.04 R on April 9, 1951, had a gross density of 0.87. A film reported 

with 0.4 R three days later had a density over 3.0. The densities are too high for 

the reported exposures unless a large control density for background and 

fallout was subtracted during the original analysis. [Emphasis added] 

Other PPG Operations. Personnel monitoring deficiencies, as discussed above, were not limited 

to Operation CROSSROADS and Operation GREENHOUSE, but by variable degrees persisted 

throughout the entire 16-year testing period, including Operation CASTLE in 1954. CASTLE 

series consisted of 6 tests and a collective yield of 48,200 kt (or 48.2 MT). With a yield of 

15 MT, shot BRAVO, the first of the test series and largest device ever tested by the U.S., posed 

significant challenges to RadSafe personnel as a result of unexpected fallout (DNA 1982a). 

Pages 101 to 107 of the DNA (1982a) report discuss many of the film dosimetry and 

recordkeeping program challenges with the test series, including shot BRAVO: 

The initial plan was to badge all personnel expected to receive a significant 

amount of radiation . . . [and] . . . a representative 10% of other personnel. . . . 

Shot BRAVO “contaminated some of the ships to the point that it would have been 

most desirable to issue film badges to all personnel on them . . . [because] . . . 

many people with no film badges received significant radiation. . . . Sufficient 

badges were not available, however, and furthermore TU 7 lacked the personnel 

to process a larger number of badges. Even so, the TU 7 technicians attempted 

to estimate the doses of those without badges based on film badges of similarly 

exposed personnel, but it was impossible to do this accurately in many cases. 

After BRAVO, more badges became available, with assignment priorities given to 

“people expected to receive significant radiation and people who had already 

received a relatively large amount of radiation. [Emphasis added.] 

The availability of more film badges in subsequent test series, however, did not resolve all 

problems, as noted by the DNA during the 1956 test series Operation REDWING (DNA 1982, p. 

109): 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

40 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

All film processing and record posting were done manually. As a result, as many 

as 40 individuals were assigned to the Dosimetry and Records Section. Manual 

reading and posting operations were tedious and subject to many errors.

[Emphasis added.] 

As noted earlier in this report, most permanent badges at Operation REDWING suffered from 

environmental damage that rendered the readings unsuitable for assessing exposure. These films 

exhibited positive readings for a period of coverage with no known potential for exposure or that 

greatly exceed the reconstructed dose from known exposure pathways. 

Most of the damage seen in film badges worn by REDWING participants resulted from the 

combined effects of heat and humidity that caused breaches in the casing that sealed the film 

package from the exterior environment. The most common effect was that moisture penetrated 

the film badge casing and damaged the film packet within. Water-damaged films can usually be 

identified visually by an irregularly shaped, often mottled, unevenly darkened image. 

In addition, many of the dosimeter films from badges worn by DOMINIC I personnel have water 

damage similar to that seen in Operation REDWING. DOMINIC I films, in addition to water 

damage, have a higher incidence of damage due to light leaks from breaches in the plastic 

covering of the badge. Such light damage occurred in film badges that had long periods of 

coverage, which appears to correlate with a higher frequency of emulsion and/or process 

damage. Films with long periods of coverage are also more likely to exhibit spurious “filter 

images” due to background radiation exposure (without appropriate controls) and/or pressure 

from the lead filter strip (NRC 1989; SAIC and NST-LLC 1989–2006; Perkins and Hammond 

1980). 

A key point for DOMINIC I films returned after November 1, 1962, is that they were processed 

at the NTS, often without the correct set of control films. Compounding the issue is that film 

reading was automated. Automated film reading without critical review allowed gradients in 

darkening or damaged areas to be assessed as legitimate density readings. The lack of 

appropriate background subtraction and the inadequate screening of results are the principal 

reasons why doses were assigned to these individuals when no exposures had occurred. Despite 

the potential for exposure at tests at the NTS during the period of testing, doses of one to several 

rem were not systematically reviewed (NRC 1989).

Failure to Monitor Skin/Clothing Contamination to Fallout/Large Particles 

As in other Operations in which participants were exposed to high levels of contamination that 

resulted in skin/clothing contamination, exposure to fallout during Operation GREENHOUSE 

raised special concerns due to the large particle size and high activity levels in fallout (Cooney 

1951). 

 Fallout from Dog Shot 

About 1 hr 40 min after the shot, the recording instruments in the radiological 

safety center indicated that a radioactive fall-out was occurring . . .
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

41 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

 The occurrence of fallout at such a short time after zero hour was a cause of 

considerable concern from a health standpoint . . . 

 Within a very short time, substantial evidence was brought forth that most of the 

activity was carried on large particles. . . . The rate of fall of the particles must 

have exceeded 10,000 ft/hr, and by using Stoke’s law, the size was computed to be 

100 microns or greater. . .

 Some of the very largest particles found were from the island of Rigili. One of 

these measured between 1 and 2 mm. It was crushed . . . and divided into roughly 

three portions. Each portion carried part of the activity which indicated more 

or less thorough mixing when the particle was made. [Emphasis added.] 

 Fallout from Item Shot 

. . . at H+30 min., MajGeneral M. McDonnel, Dr. Howard, L. Andrews, and Gen. 

Cooney flew to Engebi [Island]by helicopter and landed near Building 69. Upon 

arrival, the radiation intensity was about 400 mr/hr outside Building 69. . . . 

Another radiological survey was then made around Building 69, and it was found 

that the intensity had risen to 1.2 r/hr. It was evident that a large-particle fall-out 

was in progress. As a matter of fact, the falling particles could be felt on the face 

and hands. [Emphasis added.] 

7.4 COMMENTS AND FINDINGS PERTAINING TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE 

PPG SITE PROFILE FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL 

EXTERNAL DOSE 

SC&A’s evaluation of ORAUT-TKBS-0052, Section 6.0 and Attachment A, is largely based on 

comparison of the guidance provided in ORAUT-TKBS-0052 with available data/information. 

(This includes the PPG Operation-specific DNA reports referenced in ORAUT-TKBS-0052.) 

7.4.1 Limitations and Deficiencies of Personnel Monitoring During PPG Operations 

Based on data/information summarized in Sections 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 above, the following 

limitations/deficiencies must be considered relevant to the reconstruction of occupational 

external dose for participants of Operation CROSSROADS and Operation GREENHOUSE: 

 The majority of film badges that define gamma exposures in Attachment A of the PPG 

Site Profile were issued as mission badges. These badges were worn for select tasks and 

for restrictive time periods. 

 Mission badges were issued only to a small fraction of participants in these Operations 

and were generally collected at the end of a task for processing. 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

42 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

 For most participants, “monitoring” was based on cohort badging. Film badge exposure 

to the RadSafe monitor was intended to be “representative” of the exposure to all 

members of a group as large as 50 personnel who had not been issued a dosimeter. 

 The principal objective of the cohort badging was to provide some measure of oversight 

that would limit exposures of “unbadged” personnel to levels below Routine Maximum 

Permissible Exposures (MPE) as defined in Table 2-2 of the PPG Site Profile. 

 Recording of film dosimeters experienced multiple shortcomings of which the most 

serious one was the inability to identify the assigned person/RadSafe monitor. For cohort 

badging, this implies the loss of assigned dose to the entire cohort. 

 Film dosimeters were known to be improperly calibrated, processed, and interpreted. As 

noted in NRC 1989, little is known about the method and values used to subtract

“background” radiation that was not considered relevant to the dose associated with a 

particular mission. 

 Film dosimeters proved incapable of measuring beta exposures that dominated skin 

exposures. 

 Personnel assigned to specific tasks (e.g., re-entry on Shot-islands for retrieval of 

instruments, survey measurements, etc.; decontamination of aircrafts, and target ships 

from ABLE-Shot and Baker-Shot) routinely experienced skin and clothing contamination 

that were not quantitatively assessed/recorded. 

 Personnel living/working on islands that were subjected to fallout were not monitored. 

For Operation GREENHOUSE, unmonitored/unrecorded gamma exposures of about 

4 rem from fallout have been estimated for the islands of Enewetak, Parry, and Japtan. In 

addition, orders of magnitude higher beta doses may have resulted from fallout particles 

that ranged in the hundreds of microns. 

7.4.2 An Assessment of Guidance Provided in the PPG Site Profile 

Guidance in Section 6.0 and Attachment A of the PPG Site Profile can be summarized with the 

following statements (see Exhibits 7-1 and 7-2 above): 

 Statement #1 from Section 6.0 of the PPG Site Profile 

A review of the records provided by DOE and application of the operationspecific parameters listed in Table 2-2 [of ORAUT-TKBS-0052] will provide a 

dose estimate for the employee. [Emphasis added.] 

SC&A’s Response/Finding to Statement #1 

Reconstruction of a claimant’s external dose by means of DOE records may suffer from the 

following deficiencies: 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

43 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

(1) The claimant was not issued mission badge(s), but was “monitored” as a member of a 

cohort for which records are not available.

(2) The claimant was issued mission badges but, due to recording errors, dosimeter readings 

were not filed/assigned to the claimant.

(3) Recorded mission dosimeters experienced processing deficiencies and were subjected to 

“background subtraction” from fallout that during Operations GREENHOUSE may have 

involved values as high as 400 mR.

(4) Exposure to fallout on islands where personnel lived/worked was not recorded. For 

example, during Operation GREENHOUSE, personnel on the Islands of Enewetak, Parry, 

and Japtan may have received as much as 4 R of unmonitored gamma exposure from 

fallout.

Finding #3: Available DOE records for a claimant may not only be incomplete/inaccurate, 

but more importantly may not include unmonitored exposures associated with cohort 

badging, exposure to fallout, etc.

 Statement #2 from Section 6.0 of the PPG Site Profile 

The assignment of unmonitored dose to participants who did not receive a 

dosimeter should be evaluated. 

SC&A’s Response/Finding to Statement #2

Beyond the “recommendation” that unmonitored dose should be evaluated, NIOSH provides no 

additional guidance. Additionally, for PPG participants, the term “unmonitored” differs from 

conventional energy employees/claimants at DOE facilities. For PPG participants, the term 

“unmonitored” may involve a member of a cohort who was “monitored” by badged RadSafe 

members, but the doses were not assigned to members of the cohort. 

Finding #4: ORAUT-TKBS-0052 does not provide a definition for unmonitored dose as it 

applies to PPG participants or any specific guidance.

 Statement #3 from Section 6.0 of the PPG Site Profile 

Assume an energy distribution of 100% 30–250 keV for photons. This is very 

favorable to claimants since it is likely that participants present during the events 

were exposed to photons >250 keV. [Emphasis added.] 

SC&A’s Response/Finding to Statement #3

PPG participants whose dose reconstruction may be defined by ORAUT-TKBS-0052 include 

(1) persons with non-SEC cancers and (2) persons with any cancer inclusive of the 22 SEC 

cancers, but with less than the required 250 days of employment. The statement that an assumed 

energy distribution of 30–250 keV is “very favorable to claimants” may not be correct and 

depends on the cancer site and the assumed exposure geometry: 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

44 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

 For an assumed exposure geometry of anterior/posterior (AP), a higher dose is obtained 

for photon energy >250 keV for bone marrow and esophagus cancers. 

 For a more realistic exposure geometry defined by large-scale surface contamination 

from fallout in the PPG, higher doses are derived for >250 keV photons for all cancers

(including skin cancers) under isotropic (ISO) or rotational (ROT) exposure geometries. 

Finding #5: Average photon energies associated with fallout are well above >250 keV. 

Depending on what exposure geometry is assumed, a default photon energy of 30–250 keV 

may not be claimant favorable.

 Statement #4 from Section 6.0 of the PPG Site Profile 

Beta dose was not evaluated on the film dosimeters used during these operations. 

Beta-to-gamma ratios would be consistent with the guidance in the NTS TBD 

where atmospheric testing also occurred. 

SC&A’s Response/Finding to Statement #4

In the absence of shallow dose/skin dose measurements associated with beta radiation from 

fallout, NIOSH recommends beta-to-gamma ratios defined in Table 6-14 of Section 6.4.2.2 as 

well as in Attachment C of the NTS Site Profile ORAUT-TKBS-0008-6 (ORAUT 2012). As a 

convenience to the reader, Table 6-14 is reproduced below as Table 7-3. 

Table 7-3. Beta-Photon Ratios for Exposure from Surface Contamination 

Elapsed Time Following the 

Production Event

Beta/photon 

Sv/Sv

0 to 50 d 10

50 to 365 d 25

1 to 5 yr 60

>5 yr 25

Source: ORAUT 2012, Table 6-14

SC&A assumes that beta-to-gamma ratios cited by NIOSH in Table 7-3 represent a distance 

from a source plane (i.e., contaminated ground surface) of about 120 to 140 cm, which 

corresponds to the position of a film dosimeter worn on the chest area. 

Due to the limited range of beta particles, the beta-to-photon dose ratios differ significantly as a 

function of distance from a source plane. The critical variable of height above the source plane 

was defined for Pacific test sites by N.M. Barss and R.L Weitz (2006). Reproduced herein as 

Table 7-4 are beta-to-gamma dose ratios for bare skin exposures for distances of 1 cm to 200 cm 

from a contaminated ground surface. 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

45 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Table 7-4. Beta-to-gamma Dose Ratios for Bare Skin Exposures to 

Mixed Fission Products at Pacific Test Sites 

Time after 

Detonation

Distance from Source Plane (cm)

1 20 40 80 100 120 160 200

0.5 h 36.4 24.2 17.7 11.9 10.4 9.1 7.0 5.4

1 h 32.5 21.4 15.5 10.3 8.9 7.8 5.9 4.5

2 h 32.0 20.8 15.0 9.9 8.5 7.4 5.5 4.2

4 h 40.3 25.9 18.5 12.0 10.3 8.9 6.7 5.0

6 h 51.1 32.6 23.1 14.9 12.7 11.0 8.2 6.2

12 h 65.6 41.0 28.6 17.8 15.0 12.8 9.3 6.8

1 d 65.1 38.7 25.8 14.9 12.2 10.0 6.8 4.7

2 d 64.4 35.2 22.1 11.8 9.3 7.4 4.7 2.9

3 d 62.8 32.2 19.3 9.8 7.6 6.0 3.6 2.1

1 wk 62.3 29.0 16.3 7.7 5.8 4.5 2.5 1.4

2 wk 65.5 30.5 17.1 8.1 6.2 4.7 2.7 1.6

1 mo 72.4 34.7 19.9 9.8 7.6 6.0 3.7 2.2

2 mo 85.7 39.8 22.8 11.8 9.5 7.8 5.1 3.3

4 mo 907 40.4 23.0 12.5 10.5 9.0 6.4 4.4

6 mo 94.6 42.5 24.5 13.9 11.9 10.4 7.7 5.5

9 mo 116.7 54.5 32.5 19.6 15.4 15.4 11.8 8.8

1 y 166.1 81.2 50.3 31.7 25.6 25.6 20.1 15.2

2 y 494.2 251.9 160.5 104.2 85.3 85.3 68.0 52.3

 Source: Barrs and Weitz 2006 

Inspection of Table 7-4 indicates that for a skin cancer claim involving areas of the lower leg 

(i.e., 20 to 40 cm above ground), the beta-to-gamma dose ratios are 3 to 5 times higher than at 

chest level (or values cited in Table 7-3 above). 

Finding #6: Since claims involving skin cancer usually specify the location(s) on the body, 

the critical variable of distance above the source plane defined by Barss and Weitz (2006) 

should be included in the assignment of beta-to-gamma dose ratios for PPG claimants.

 Statement #5 from Section 6.0 of the PPG Site Profile 

 

Assign missed dose based on the number of exchanges found in the dosimetry 

records. During these tests there were operation badges that were worn for the 

entire test sequence . . . and there were mission badges that were worn for the 

duration of a specific task. Since both badges were to be worn at the same time 

only one zero should be assigned. [Emphasis added.] 

SC&A Response/Finding to Statement #5 

A review of DNA reports shows that these statements are incorrect for PPG tests conducted 

between June 1946 and May 1954, which included Operations CROSSROADS, SANDSTONE, 

GREENHOUSE, IVY, and CASTLE. For Operation CASTLE, NRC (1989) stated the 

following: 

The initial plan for badging personnel expected to receive significant amounts of 

radiation exposure and a representative 10% of other Personnel (Martin 1982). 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

46 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Although there was a need to badge all personnel immediately after the first shot, 

BRAVO, because of the extensive contamination due to fallout, there were not 

enough badges available to do this. Additionally, the staffing level of Task 

Unit 7.1.7, which provided radiological safety support, was insufficient to process 

a larger number of badges than were available. 

For shots subsequent to BRAVO, there were more badges available and there was 

a greater emphasis on personnel monitoring. Nevertheless, all personnel 

involved in the series were not monitored with individual personnel dosimeter. 

[Emphasis added.] 

An assessment of missed dose requires a firm understanding of badge issue and exchange 

frequency for a given Operation. The assignment of missed dose for Operations up to and 

inclusive of CASTLE are made difficult by (1) the restrictive use/assignment of mission badges, 

(2) undocumented use of cohort badging, and (3) the unspecified subtraction of “exposures to 

fallout.”

Finding #7: NIOSH’s guidance for the assignment of missed dose is based on assumptions 

that are not supported by facts and in the face of uncertainty are clearly not claimant 

favorable.

 Statement #6 from Attachment A of the PPG Site Profile 

The following information is available in the DNA radiation reports for the 

various PPG Operations. Using this summary data . . . a 50% dose for each 

operation can be used as co-worker dose, until such time as co-worker data is 

[sic] available. [Emphasis added.] 

SC&A’s Response/Findings to Statement #6/Attachment A 

Operation-specific dose distribution data cited in Attachment A of the PPG Site Profile (see 

Exhibit 7-2 above) is dominated by mission film dosimeters, which represent exposures 

associated with specific tasks conducted by select personnel. As explained above, mission badge 

exposures represent only a portion of exposures received by PPG participants. Furthermore, the 

accuracy of recorded film badge data is uncertain due to issues of (1) dosimeter calibration, 

(2) errors in recordkeeping, and (3) subtraction of unspecified exposures registered on “control 

badges” that had been exposed to elevated ambient levels of fallout radiation. 

Lastly, SC&A questions NIOSH’s interpretation and use of these Operation-specific dose 

distribution data cited in DNA reports for the following reasons: 

(1) Use of a derived 50% dose as the coworker dose 

(2) Misuse of DNA data for defining the 50% dose 

Misuse of the 50% Dose. Coworker dose models have been used extensively by NIOSH for 

assigning external as well as internal doses to workers at DOE and AWE facilities. Guidance for 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

47 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

the assignment of a coworker dose is provided in ORAUT-OTIB-0020 (ORAUT 2011b). 

Section 3.0 of OTIB-0020 provides the following guidance. 

The general approach to applying coworker data for cases with little or no 

individual external monitoring data is to assign either 50th- or 95th-percentile

doses with the intent that the assigned doses represent, but do not underestimate, 

the doses that would be assigned had the employee been monitored. . . . 

. . . In general, the 50th-percentile dose may be used as a best estimate of a 

worker’s dose when professional judgment indicates the worker was likely 

exposed to intermittent low levels of external radiation. The 50th-percentile dose 

should not be used for workers who were routinely exposed. For routinely 

exposed workers (i.e., workers who were expected to have been monitored), the 

95th-percentile dose should be applied. [Emphasis added.] 

The restrictive badging policy for Operations up to and inclusive of Operation CASTLE was 

dictated not on the basis of need, but rather by the limited availability of dosimeters and human 

resources for their calibration, processing, and recording. Under less restrictive conditions, all 

participants should/would have been badged. Notwithstanding that permanent badges were 

issued to all participants beginning with Operation REDWING in 1956, the veracity of readings 

from those dosimeters is highly questionable for at least two Operations; REDWING and 

DOMINIC I. 

Finding #8: Independent of other concerns/limitations that characterize the DNA dose 

distribution data (e.g., their accuracy, completeness, etc.), use of the 50th percentile dose as 

a coworker dose is not justified for PPG participants for Operations up to and inclusive of 

Operation CASTLE and for the subsequent Operations where dosimeter damage was an 

issue.

Misuse of DNA Data for Deriving 50% Dose. Inspection of Attachment A (see Exhibit 7-2 

above) identifies an equation that is applied to each Operation-specific dose distribution, which 

consists of the following four dose ranges: 

0 0.001–1 R 1–3 R >3 R

These dose distributions not only suffer from various deficiencies, including subtraction of 

unspecified ambient fallout doses recorded by “control badges” and overstated readings from 

environmental damage, but are reduced further by NIOSH’s failure to modify these dose 

distributions by acknowledging the 40 mR MDA value of film dosimeters used at the time. 

Thus, the first and second dose ranges should have been modified to account for the dosimeters 

MDA of 0.04 R as follows: 

 0.0–0.04 R and 0.04–1 R 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

48 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Finding #9: Operation-specific dose distributions defined by DNA must be adjusted to 

account for the MDA value of film dosimeters regardless of what percentile value is 

employed.
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

49 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

8.0 AN ASSESSMENT OF THE PPG SITE PROFILE FOR ADEQUACY 

IN PERFORMING A DOSE RECONSTRUCTION

A practical way to assess the adequacy of guidance provided in ORAUT-TKBS-0052 for the 

reconstruction of external dose for PPG claimants is to review a representative claim. SC&A 

searched its own records of PPG dose reconstructions that had previously been audited by 

SC&A. In October 2010, SC&A issued its draft audit of Case #[Redacted], which involved an 

energy employee (EE) who worked as a [Redacted] for the [Redacted] at various 

locations/islands that are part of Enewetak Atoll of the Marshall Islands. The following data 

summarize key elements of the EE’s dose reconstruction:

 Employment Periods 

(1) [Redacted]–[Redacted]

(2) [Redacted]–[Redacted]

 Cancer: The EE was diagnosed with [Redacted] on the [Redacted] in [Redacted].

 The dose reconstruction performed by NIOSH in April 2009 employed a partial dose 

reconstruction that assigned the following exposures shown in Table 8-1. 

Table 8-1. Summary of NIOSH-Derived External Dose Estimates 

Dose (rem)

[Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] Total

External Dose (Occ.):

▪ Recorded/Modeled Dose: 0.225 0.131 0.356

 - Photons 30–250 keV 0.225 0.131 0.356

 - Electrons >15 keV

▪ Missed Dose Dose

 - Photons 30–250 keV 0.025 0.025

 - Electrons >15 keV

▪ Assigned Coworker Dose

 - Photons 30–250 keV 0.250 0.250

 - Electrons >15 keV 0.250 0.250

▪ Occupational Medical Dose

 - Photons 30–250 keV 1.229 1.229 2.458

Total 3.695

It should be noted that the dose reconstructor for Case #[Redacted] is also a co-author of the 

PPG Site Profile ORAUT-TKBS-0052 (ORAUT 2012). Discussed in Sections 8.1 through 8.4 is 

a detailed assessment of the EE’s assigned doses and their deficiencies.
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

50 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

8.1 RECORDED/MODELED DOSE 

8.1.1 Recorded/Modeled Dose for [Redacted]

Table 8-1 shows a photon and electron dose of 0.225 mR, which reflects the recorded gamma 

dose of two mission badges issued on two consecutive days of [redacted], and [redacted],

with readings of 50 mR and 70 mR, respectively. 

In addition, there was an “assigned” dose of 60 mR for fallout for a total gamma dose of 180 mR 

(see Exhibit 8-1). The recorded and assessed gamma dose of 180 mR was multiplied by a 

correction factor of 1.25 (used at the NTS site) for the assigned gamma dose of 0.225 mR. 

For assigning a corresponding beta dose, the dose reconstruction stated: 

... A beta-to-gamma ratio of one-to-one was applied to the measured and 

unmonitored dose assigned, consistent with presence immediately after a test.9 

[Emphasis added.] [Ref. 9 above refers to the NTS Site Profile.] 

SC&A’s Comments. Assigned gamma and beta doses for the year [redacted] are 

underestimated for the following reasons:

(1) NIOSH’s “assumed” beta-to-photon ratio of 1 is incorrect and inconsistent with 

recommended value of ~10 defined in Table 7.3 above.

(2) Based on statements provided by the EE and DNA’s formal dose assessment with 

Operation GREENHOUSE fallout (DNA 1983b), there are sound reasons to 

question the photon dose of 60 mR as “assessed” on [redacted], for the EE on the 

day of the EE’s departure. 

Statements provided by the EE on [redacted], 2008, and recorded on page 10 of the 

Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI):

[Statements made by the EE during the interview have been redacted in full 

for Privacy Act concerns.]

The EE’s presence on Enewetak Atoll from [redacted], to [redacted], coincided with the 

[redacted]. The EE’s two mission badges issued on [redacted] and [redacted] can 

reasonably be assumed to represent [redacted]. Thus, unmonitored exposure to fallout 

occurred on the test island of [redacted] and other support islands that included Japtan

(see Figures 7.1 through 7.9 above).

Based on time-integrated fallout exposures for Japtan Island (see Figure 7-10 above), a 

reasonable gamma dose for the [redacted], would be 1.75 rem, and 17.5 rem for the beta 

dose.
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

51 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Exhibit 8-1. [Redacted] Dosimetry Records for Case #[Redacted]

8.1.2 Recorded/Modeled Dose for [Redacted]

For the year [redacted], DOE records identify three dosimeter assignments (see Exhibit 

8-2). The first two badges (#[redacted] and #[redacted]) yielded “responses” that were 

recorded as 50 mrem and 55 mrem, respectively. The third badge (#[redacted]) was 

recorded as zero dose. NIOSH again employed a “correction factor” of 1.25 and a betato-photon ratio of 1 for the two dosimeters, yielding a total gamma and beta dose of 

0.131 rem each.

SC&A Comments 

Exposure recorded on film badges #[redacted] and #[redacted] predate [redacted] and 

must, therefore, reflect fallout from the [redacted]. For fallout that has aged for about 2

years, the beta-to-gamma ratio of about 60 is recommended in Table 6-14 and 

Appendix C of the NTS Site Profile (ORAUT 2012). 

Therefore, for [redacted], the recorded photon dose of 0.131 rem translates to a beta 

dose of about 7.86 rem.
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

52 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Additionally, SC&A questions the accuracy of the two film dosimeters (i.e., badge 

#[redacted]) identified in Exhibit 8-2 for reasons that had been noted in NRC (1989) and 

discussed in Section 7.3 of this report. The concern centers on the undocumented

method used by RadSafe dosimeter processing personnel for the background 

subtraction of control film badges from issued film badges. 

Original processing information of badge #[redacted] and badge #[redacted], as shown 

in Exhibit 8-3, supports this concern:

 Badge #[redacted] with a “recorded” dose of 50 mR had a Net Optical Density 

(NOD) of 0.00

 Badge #[redacted] with a recorded dose of 55 mR had a NOD of 0.02

These data suggest that the background subtraction of control badges may have been 

subjected to variable and significant amounts of fallout radiation. Exposures to and 

responses by control dosimeters to ambient fallout were likely shared by dosimeters 

issued to personnel and should, therefore, not be subtracted. (Note: Prior to nuclear 

testing in the PPG, natural background radiation from terrestrial and cosmic radiation 

was minimal.) SC&A, therefore, concludes that the practice of subtracting the optical 

densities of control badges exposed to fallout from assigned badges results in an NOD 

that wrongly reduces the recorded dose of assigned film dosimeters. 

Exhibit 8-2. [Redacted] Dosimetry Records for Case #[Redacted]
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

53 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Exhibit 8-3. Original Processing Information of Badge #[Redacted] and Badge #[Redacted]

Inclusive of Recorded NOD Values
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

54 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

8.2 ASSIGNED MISSED DOSE 

For both employment periods, NIOSH assigned but a single missed dose of 0.025 rem for the 

year [redacted] along with the following explanation: 

A missed dose represents the dose that could have been received but may not have 

been recorded due to dosimeter detection limits or site reporting practices. Based 

on information provided in the Summary Site Profile of the Pacific Proving 

Ground, the number of dosimeter cycles assigned was 1 for photons. This 

number was based on the actual number of annual dosimeter exchanges found 

in the records provided by DOE. . . . a limit of detection (LOD) for each 

Operation is found in Table 2-2 of the Summary Site Profile of the Pacific 

Proving Ground, and was used in this dose reconstruction. [Emphasis added.] 

SC&A’s Comments 

Statements regarding annual dosimeter exchange and the assignment of missed doses, as stated 

above, are incorrect/unsupported. As previously cited in DNA reports, for all Operations up to 

and inclusive of Operation CASTLE, the majority of assigned film dosimeters were mission 

badges that were usually limited to a specific task and returned for processing at end-of-day. 

Exhibit 8-1 identifies two separate mission badges dated [redacted] and [redacted], that 

coincided with [redacted]. For the EE’s second employment in 1958, Exhibit 8-2 and 

Exhibit 8-3 identify two film dosimeters (badges #[redacted] and #[redacted]) with recorded 

exposures of 50 mR and 55 mR, respectively, and a third dosimeter (badge #[redacted]) with a 

dose of zero. 

A deficiency associated with the assigned missed photon dose of 0.025 rem for [redacted]

include the fact that the missed photon dose would also have had a beta component along with 

an appropriate beta-to-photon adjustment factor. For the missed photon dose of 0.025 rem and a 

beta-to-photon ratio of 10, a beta dose of 0.25 rem should have been assigned.

8.3 ASSIGNED COWORKER DOSE

For [redacted], the DOE stated that there were no dosimetry records for the EE. NIOSH, 

therefore, assigned an “unmonitored” dose for this year with the following explanation:

Based on summaries of external dose measurements, a 50% dose has been 

calculated in accordance with Attachment A of the Summary Site Profile for the 

Pacific Proving Ground. . . . For the year that [the EE] was unmonitored no 

tests occurred. To be claimant favorable, the 50% dose from the previous test 

(Sandstone, 1948 [DNA 1983c]) was assigned as both photon and electron.

[Emphasis added.] 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

55 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

SC&A Comments 

Under Operation [redacted], three tests ([redacted], [redacted], and [redacted]) were 

conducted over a 30-day period in [redacted] on [redacted] ([redacted]).

NIOSH’s assigned dose of 0.250 rem for both photons and electrons as the 50% dose for 

Operation [redacted] is incorrect for the following two reasons: 

(1) Attachment A of the PPG Site Profile identifies the calculated 50% gamma dose for 

Operation [redacted] as 1.383 rem (not 0.250 rem) (see Exhibit 7-2 above). 

(2) For the assigned electron dose of 0.250 rem, the beta-to-gamma ratio of 1:1 was assumed 

by NIOSH. Given the approximate 2-year time lapse between Operation [redacted] and 

the unmonitored year [redacted], a beta-to-gamma ratio of ~50 should have been applied 

based on values shown in Table C-1 of the NTS Site Profile (ORAUT 2012). This would 

correspond to a beta dose of about 69 rem. 

Additional exposures that were either not monitored or recorded may be assumed based on 

information provided by the EE. Unmonitored exposures associated with the first employment 

period during Operation [redacted] may have involved substantial (but difficult to quantify) skin 

doses associated with direct deposition of fallout onto skin/clothing. The EE’s recall of 

having “. . . [redacted] . . .” is consistent with observations and fallout data provided by Cooney 

(1951) and referenced in Section 7.3 above. 

The potential for “unrecorded” exposures must equally be assumed during the EE’s first 

employment period. DOE records indicate that for the entire period of [redacted] (which 

includes the [redacted]), the EE was assigned only 2 mission film dosimeters, as described in 

Section 8.1. The “intermittent” assignment of film dosimeters was acknowledged by the EE 

during the CATI along with the EE’s recall of also having been monitored by cohort badging, a 

common practice during Operation [redacted] (see Table 2-2 of the PPG Site Profile). There is 

no evidence of cohort badging in DOE records and no reference is made to cohort badging in the 

EE’s dose reconstruction report. 

8.4 OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL DOSE 

For each of the years [redacted] and [redacted], NIOSH assigned 1.229 rem for a total of 2.458 

rem in spite of the fact that (1) DOE had no records of occupational medical exposure, and (2) 

the EE had no recall of any medical exposures as an employee of the [redacted].

SC&A’s Comments 

Based on more recent guidelines defined in ORAUT-OTIB-0079 (ORAUT 2011a), the assigned 

dose of 2.458 rem for occupational medical dose may not be justified. 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

56 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

8.5 OTHER DEFICIENCIES 

The following information was entered into the CATI by the EE on [redacted], 2008:

[The EE] said [the EE] had [redacted] and provided the information already to 

the DOL. [The EE] said [the EE] will phone [the EE’s] attorney and AR [name], 

and get him involved to contact the DOL. I provided [the EE] with the toll free 

number to the Seattle DOL Office. [Emphasis added.]

Reference to the CATI report in the dose reconstruction for Case #[Redacted] is limited to the 

following statements:

The record of the telephone interview was evaluated carefully by the dose 

reconstructor. According to the telephone interview, [the EE] was not involved in 

any radiation exposure or contamination incidents. The information in the 

telephone interview is also supported by the dosimetry records provided by the 

DOE. Therefore, no additional modifications to this dose reconstruction were 

made. [Emphasis added.] 

There was no acknowledgment in the DR report (dated April 7, 2009) regarding the EE’s 

alleged claim of v and there was no follow-up by NIOSH to verify the EE’s claim.

Independent of errors identified by SC&A in Section 8.0 herein and our formal audit of 

Case #[Redacted], a potential confirmation of three additional melanomas would clearly have 

affected the probability of causation (POC). 

A review of the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) Notice of Final Decision dated October 9, 2009, 

identified the following: 

(1) The EE died on [redacted].

(2) On May 28, 2009, the EE’s wife filed a Form EE-2 (for survivor Benefits). 

(3) The claim for [redacted] under Part B of the Act was limited to the [redacted] diagnosed 

on the [redacted] on [redacted].

(4) The NIOSH-IREP indicated a 36.94% probability that the employee’s cancer was caused 

by radiation exposure at the PPG. 

(5) On July 29, 2009, the claim was denied. 

In summary, our review of the DOL’s Notice of Final Decision shows that there was no 

mention of [redacted] alleged by the EE. Enclosed herein as Appendix 1 is a redacted copy of 

the Notice of Final Decision for Case #[Redacted]. 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

57 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

9.0 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Unlike all other DOE/AWE facilities, the PPG is not a “facility,” but represents a remote cluster 

of Pacific atolls/islands with limited infrastructure that, nevertheless, served as test sites for 

nuclear weapons considered too large/dangerous to be tested in the continental U.S. 

Given the immense scope of the PPG program and complexity of radiological environments to 

which PPG participants were exposed, it is not surprising that there were numerous deficiencies 

in radiological protection and personnel monitoring that varied over time among successive 

PPG test Operations. 

As noted in in this report, during earlier Operations, the principal focus on radiological 

protection was to limit external gamma exposures to less than 0.1 R/day. This objective was 

mostly achieved by the restrictive/selective use of mission badges, cohort badging, (which, 

however, were not consistently assigned/recorded for members of the cohort) and by dose-rate

measurements and restricted stay-times (which may also not have been properly recorded). 

Lastly, exposures not associated with specific tasks/missions were unmonitored. Unmonitored 

exposures principally included external exposure to ambient fallout on islands where personnel 

worked/lived and to skin/clothing contamination resulting from direct deposition of fallout or 

contact with contaminated surfaces. 

SC&A assessed the PPG Site Profile (ORAUT 2006) in context with operation-specific 

information and data reported by the DNA and NRC. Based on our review, SC&A concludes the 

following: 

 For the reconstruction of occupational external dose, the PPG Site Profile is lacking in 

both guidance and data/information commonly included in a site profile. SC&A’s 

concerns for the Site Profile’s limited guidance and inappropriate use of data for its 

coworker model were further supported by our review of a previously SC&A-audited 

dose reconstruction discussed in Section 8.0.

 Due to evolving changes in radiological protection practices and policies that were 

introduced over the 16-year period of the PPG program, relevant information provided in 

DNA reports should be incorporated into the PPG Site Profile for each test Operation. 

 For PPG test Operations that predate the issuance of permanent film dosimeters to all 

test participants, use of DOE records for individual dose reconstructions will likely 

result in dose estimates that significantly underestimate actual doses, even when such 

dose records are assumed “complete.”

 Operation-specific information should, therefore, include newer data (such as external 

unmonitored gamma dose data from fallout during Operation GREENHOUSE) as well as 

acknowledged limitations pertaining to selective dosimeter assignments, deficiencies in 

film processing and background subtraction, and incomplete dosimeter records. 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

58 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

 For cancers involving the skin and other surficial tissues, guidance should be provided 

that address unmonitored exposures involving skin/clothing contamination due to 

fallout. 

 Attachment A of the PPG Site Profile should be critically evaluated for its use as a 

coworker model for unmonitored workers. This is particularly true for PPG Operations 

in which dosimeter data are dominated by mission badges/coworker badges. 

One potential alternative to a dose reconstruction involving incomplete records and/or the use of 

a coworker model is the assignment of the MPE at 0.1 R/day. Support for this option is given by 

the following statements: 

 From DNA (1984): Factsheet 

All CROSSROADS operations were undertaken under radiological supervision 

intended to keep personnel from being exposed to more than 0.1 roentgen (R) per 

day. At the time, this was considered to be an amount of radiation that could be 

tolerated for long periods without harmful effects on health. [Emphasis added.] 

 And from DNA 1983(b) Chapter 10 

The recent analysis does confirm that all personnel living on these three islands 

of Enewetak Atoll through the entire series [of Operation GREEENHOUSE]

probably exceeded the task force’s maximum permissible exposure (MPE) due 

to fallout alone. Any additional exposures on missions would add to this 

overexposure. [Emphasis added.]
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

59 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

REFERENCES 

42 CFR 83, Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as Members of the Special 

Exposure Cohort Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act 

of 2000; Final Rule, Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 104/Friday, May 28, 2004, p 30764. 

ABRWH 2006a. Transcript of the 37th Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health, Vol. 2, Day 2, ABRWH Board Meeting, held at the at the Four Points by 

Sheraton, Denver, Colorado, on April 26, 2006. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health. 

ABRWH 2006b. Transcript of the Work Group Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation 

and Worker Health, SEC Issues, held at the Holiday Inn Airport, Erlanger, Kentucky, on 

November 17, 2006. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 

ABRWH 2006c. Transcript of the Work Group Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation 

and Worker Health, Nevada Test Site, held at the Holiday Inn Airport, Erlanger, Kentucky, on 

November 15, 2006. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 

Barss, N. M., and R. L. Weitz, 2006. “Reconstruction of External Dose from Beta Radiation 

Sources of Nuclear Weapon Origin,” Health Physics, volume 91, number 4, pp. 379–389.

Cooney, J.P., 1951. Operation Green house, Scientific Director’s Report of Atomic Weapon 

Tests at Enewetak, 1951, Annex 9.3, Radiological Safety. WT-89. Washington, DC.

DNA 1981. Operation Wigwam, DNA 6000F, Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, DC. 

DNA 1982a. Castle Series, 1954, DNA 6035F, Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, DC.

DNA 1982b. Operation Argus 1958, DNA 6039F, Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, DC.

DNA 1982c. Operation Hardtack I 1958, DNA 6038F, Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington,

DC.

DNA 1982d. Operation Ivy, DNA 6036F, Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, DC. 

DNA 1982e. Operation Redwing: 1956, DNA 6037F, Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington,

DC.

DNA 1983a. Operation Dominic I-1962, DNA 6040F, Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington,

DC.
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

60 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

DNA 1983b. Operation Greenhouse 1951, DNA 6034F, Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington,

DC.

DNA 1983c. Operation Sandstone: 1948, DNA 6033F, Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington,

DC.

DNA 1984. Operation Crossroads 1946, DNA 6032F, Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington,

DC.

DNA 1986. U.S Nuclear Testing from Project Trinity to the Plowshare Program, in For the 

Record – A History of the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program, 1978-1986, A.A. Johnson, 

Et al., DNA 6041F. Washington, DC.

DOE/NV 2000. United States Nuclear Tests, July 1945 through September 1992, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office DOE/NV-209 (Rev. 15). December 2000. 

DOL 2006. Processing Claims for the Pacific Proving Grounds SEC Class, 1946–1962. 

EEOICPA BULLETIN NO. 06-15. Issue Date: September 27, 2006. Department of Labor, 

Washington, DC. 

DOL 2007. Supplemental Guidance for Processing Claims for the Pacific Proving Grounds 

SEC Class, 1946–1962. EEOICPA BULLETIN NO.07-05. Issue Date: January 11, 2007, 

Department of Labor, Washington, DC. 

DTRA/NTPR 2008. Standard Operating Procedures Manual, Standard Method ED01, Film 

Badge Dose Assessment, Rev 1.1, Defense Threat Reduction Agency/Nuclear Test Personnel 

Review Program. DTRA/NTPR SM ED01. March 31, 2008.

Martin, E.J., R. H. Rowland 1982. CASTLE SERIES–1954, Defense Nuclear Agency, DNA6033F, Washington, DC. April 1, 1982. 

NIOSH 2005. SEC Petition Evaluation Report, Petition SEC-00020, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. October 20, 2005. 

NRC 1989. Film Badge Dosimetry in Atmospheric Nuclear Tests, Report 69114, National 

Research Council, Committee on Film Badge Dosimetry in Atmospheric Nuclear Tests, National 

Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

ORAUT 2004. Occupational X-Ray Dose Reconstruction for DOE Sites, ORAUT-PROC-0061, 

Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. December 1, 2004. 

ORAUT 2005. Technical Information Bulletin: Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally 

Related Diagnostic X-Ray Procedures, ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Rev 03 PC-1, December 21, 2005. 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

61 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

ORAUT 2006. Summary Site Profile for the Pacific Proving Grounds, ORAUT-TKBS-0052, 

Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio, 8/30/2006. 

ORAUT 2011a. Guidance on Assigning Occupational X-Ray Dose Under EEOICPA for X-Rays 

Administered Off Site, ORAUT-OTIB-0079, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. January 3, 2011. 

ORAUT 2011b. Use of Coworker Dosimetry Data for External Dose Assignment, ORAUTOTIB-0020, Rev. 03, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio, November 14, 

2011.

ORAUT 2012. Nevada Test Site – Occupational External Dose, ORAUT-TKBS-0008-6,

Rev. 03, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. November 9, 2012. 

Perkins, W.W., and R. R. Hammond, 1980. “Navy Film Badge Review: DOMINIC, Navy 

Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program,” NOSC TR 583, Naval Ocean Systems Center (May 

28). 

Pevec, D.Z., 1999. Claims of the Enewetak People for Just and Adequate Compensation, Report 

of the Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government Council Regarding the Status of Nuclear Claims, 

Relocation, and Resettlement Issues. May 1999. 

SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation) and NST - LLC (National Securities 

Technologies LLC), 1989–2006. Evaluations of dosimeter films conducted from about 1989 to 

2006, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

SC&A 2004. Standard Operating Procedure for Performing Site Profile Reviews, Rev. 1. 

S. Cohen & Associates, McLean, Virginia. May 13, 2004. 

Simon, S.L. and W.L. Robison, 1997. “A Compilation of Nuclear Weapons Test Detonation 

Data for U.S. Pacific Ocean Tests,” Health Physics, volume 73, number 1, pages 258–264.
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

62 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

APPENDIX 1: DOL’S NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION FOR 

CASE [REDACTED] 
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

63 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Appendix 1: DOL’s Notice of Final Decision for Case [Redacted] (continued)
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

64 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Appendix 1: DOL’s Notice of Final Decision for Case [Redacted] (continued)
Effective Date:

November 5, 2013

Revision No.

1 (Draft)

Document No.

SCA-TR-SP2013-0040

Page No.

65 of 65

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Appendix 1: DOL’s Notice of Final Decision for Case [Redacted] (continued)